succeed and realizing the circumstance without cars. i don't know what's going to happen when you get these proposals in june, but it seems to me that there's a lot of thinking that still should be done about how the retail works out, even though it would be lovely to get retail in here and have them paying money so that the deficits that have been accumulating over the last few months can be resolved. on the sponsorship question, supervisor or famous

people, they're not named after corporations. i think to name it the google transit center or the twitter terminal would be bad in many, many, many respects. i think the term limits if you expect to get money from philanthropy, you can't put terms on it which is not a particular good idea, and i don't know -- i talked to the gentleman who gave the proposal afterwards and he had no idea how much money was required and he acted like he hadn't talked to anybody yet and two months is not a very long period of time to go out, go in the neighborhood and find millions and millions of dollars for sponsorships. it seems to me unless something comes back, it's really great, you're much better off waiting until this project has the kind of visibility of what people actually see, particularly the park. you should be able to raise 30

million dollars from philanthropy to fix the park problem, you really should but it's not something you can do in two weeks with an rfq. it's a lot of work and i would suggest you will get a very suboptimum report if you take what you get on the 23rd of this mother and sign it off in june and i know you need the money but i appeal to you that these two areas are in great need of a lot more thinking than has gone into it. thank you very much. >> are you by any chance on the citizens advisory committee? >> i am not. >> okay. >> i am not for a reason, one, it's hard for me to get o the meetings but secondly, the work i'm doing, you'll see the -- there's a group of us that are start tog do this for the transit center is to take the whole thing into account. we're interested in the 7 buildings, the transit center, the total package and the

citizen advisory committee is basically only responsible for the transit center, it also has an agenda and it's also very large. thanks. >> that concludes members of the public. i wanted to address you under that item, we'll go ahead and move under the consent calendar. all matters are considered to be reteen, will be no separate discussion of the items unless the board or the public requests, the item would be removed from the consent calendar. i have not received any indication that a member of the public or the board wants any items severed, 8.1, approving the minutes of the march 12th meeting and 8.2, authorizing the executive director to amend the professional services agreement for community benefit district formation assistance services with mjm management group. >> we have a motion and a second, without objection, it passes unanimously, or do you want to take the roll.

>> ewe unanimously, none opposed. >> item number 89 is approving an amendment to the contract number 08-04-cmgc-000 authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to execute a trade work subcontract with pacific erectors inc. as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of 19 million 553 thousand for tg08.4, metal panels thereby increasing authorized direct costs by 19 million 553 thousand and the authorized construction services fixed fee by 1 million 486 thousand 28 dollars. >> do we need a presentation on this. >> you're up, mark. >> we received -- we had four prequalified bidders, we received three bids ranging

between 19.455 and 28 million dollars, [inaudible] in this amount of 19.55 million dollars, pacific erectors bid was [inaudible] but 5.4 million dollars above our budget of 14 million dollars, and we're commending to award it to pacific erectors for the point of [inaudible] and fund the balance from the reserves. >> this isn't the skin, right? >> no. >> this is other panels. >> these are panels and closures around the staircases, the elevators and escalator areas, i tried to put some photos in there. >> okay. motion? second? >> i'll second. >> without objection.

okay, it pass passes unanimous. >> no matters of the public wishing to address you, now it passes unanimously. er >> moving on to item 10, approving an amendment to contract number 08-04-cmgc-000, authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to execute a trade work subcontract with olson and company steel, the sole responsive bidder for noshed amount 10 million 323 thousand $242 miscellaneous metals thereby increasing authorized direct toss by 10 million 323 thousand 242 dollars. >> so, as we open bids for it in january, we received only one bid and the board

authorized the executive director to negotiate with the sole bid which was olson, [inaudible] our budget was approximately 7.9 million dollars. we entered into negotiations and we discussed several items that we discussed with olson regarding there's any valuable engineering opportunities or cost reduction opportunities and we identified approximately 1.2 million dollars in value engineering and cost reduction. this is the five item that is we discussed and we agreed upon. the first two items are rail, handrails on the park for a total amount of 740 thousand dollars. these items should not have been bid by olson, they're part of the landscaping contract that's already issued to bid. in discussions with olson, olson realized it was not part of their scope, so we asked olson to hold the price for 6

months and we're going the exclude this from the bid price. we will open the landscaping and compare the prices and if the landscaping is high e we will come back, if not, we will use the landscaping, but just to make sure. the third item listed here is we have security fence screening in the rooms to secure the servers and the computer systems, olson suggested a standard fencing design versus what we have speck as a custom design so, that will be a valued engineer item of a savings of 230 thousand dollars. the fourth item is again column protection covers, aluminum checkered plate come lumps in the back of the house, we expect custom aluminum covers, there will be a savings of 115

thousand dollars. the fifth item is a detail that we have for steel plate detailed attaching the waterproofing, in discussion of olson, olson suggested this detail could be much simpler if it was part of the waterproof lg, the design team reviewed it and said they could do it much simpler as part of the waterproofing, that's a savings of 120 thousand for this particular trade package, it would cost probably 20 thousand in the waert proofing addition, so we're recommending to award the package to olson for 10 million 323 thousand dollars. >> how many firms were prequalified for this work? >> we had five prequalified bidders, we've contacted all of them and they basically informed us they were very busy and they couldn't bid for the

project. >> so i have just a question on -- i'm glad it seems like you're sensitive to it on these top two items with respect to the rooftop park. there is -- still if we can find out when it goes to the alternate trade package, they could still be built out, right? is that what you're saying here? >> yeah, we have them listed in the landscaping package as above the deduct alternates, when we open the bids, we would see what they bid, if they bid lower than olson bid, we would exercise that option, if not, we will reject that and olson would buy the two items from olson for that total. >> the rooftop park is essentially a community

amenity, so i think the board's particularly sensitive to value engineering there and making sure we can preserve the possibility of doing it as planned as long as possible. >> yeah, so these two elements will be part of the transit center, it's a matter or of what trade package would be bought from it, that's the issue. >> and you see that going out within the next six months? >> the rooftop park has been advertised already, and we -- the current bid opening is june 30th. we're doing our best in order to communicate and attract bidders for it, we have four prequalified bidders and cm/gc is engaged with them, so we're hoping to get a healthy pool of bidders and we're trying our best for that. >> and the scope for that is the whole park? >> the scope for that would be the landscaping, the hard escaping for the park, the electrical and the mechanical elements nr the park are being negotiated with the current bidders to see if we can get a

fair and reasonable price with them as a change order, if that doesn't happen, we will bid them out separately. the entire scope of the park is being negotiated either with existing bidders or the landscape contract has been advertised. >> so, i understand -- i thought that you had taken those elements out of those existing mep contracts deliberately? >> yes. >> so, now after taking them out, now you're negotiating with the winning bidders to see what kind of price they would give? it's less likely to get us a competitive price? >> if we don't get a fair and reasonable price, we will bid them out separately. because of the budgetary purposes, we couldn't award it as part of the mechanical piece. >> we didn't have those elements as alternates in the bidding process.

>> no. >> how will the timing work if you're not able to get a reasonable price in terms of the timeline for initiating a new bid process. . er we expect to get the prices at the end of this month, early next month for the mep's, the mep's were awarded late last year, we've been nesting the scope with them, making sure they understand what the scope is, we expect to get prices end of this month, early next month. if that doesn't work, we can turn around and bid them out in the august timeframe, we're hoping to come to a conclusion with the existing bidders. it's a matter of we won't be able to execute the change orders until after the budget has been updated. >> what time of exclusion does that caoe -- create >> the total cost of the park, our estimate is 38 million

dollars. the estimate for the landscaping package that's currently being advertised is 24.5 million dollars. so, there's about -- i want to say 5 million dollars, there's probably more than that that we're negotiating with them, but i don't want to tell them how much we want to pay for it. >> is there a motion for approval? >> move approval. >> we have a motion and a second. is there any objection to the motion? seeing none, it passes unanimously. >> and we'll note for the record that no members of the public want to comment on this item. item 1 is authorizing the executive director to execute an amendment to the office lease for 9685 square feet of office space to 201 mission street in san francisco for a term of five years and four

months with ca mission street limited parlt ner ship. >> and sarah is here to give a brief report and answer any questions. >> good morning, sarah jelati, i can answer any questions that you have on the staff report and our broker tony from dtz is here if you have any specific questions that i can't answer. >> first i appreciate the shrinking of the footprint, i know that's not always easy to do, i appreciate you keeping the cost down by doing so. my question is how you arrived at five years as a desired extension. >> i'll probably have tony come up and speak to what typical terms are. we were asking for three years and our understanding

[inaudible]. >> five years from now, three years from now, i don't know if that will be the case because there's a lot of space coming

online, so it may not be as easy as we think, all we can do is hope it sounds like, if the landlord's insistent, then we have to do five years. >> and why wasn't -- did we -- who -- did you do the original brokerage or was it then cassidy and turly, they did the original one. >> correct. >> so, did we have the opportunity to lease longer initially than we did? the project was never intended to be online this early, so i was wondering what our thinking was, not to get a longer lease from the beginning? >> if you recall, phase 1 was originally before we added the train box would have been done by now, 2014, so the original lease was 2003 and it was an 8 year lease i believe and we

negotiated the extension early because we needed larger space, we had more people sitting in one office at one point, so in 2008, we negotiated through 2015, that was prior to adding the train box to phase 1. the transit center would have been completed in 2014. >> did we ever officially say we were not going to build a train box out rkts i thought it was contemplated we wouldn't build the train box in phase 1, but not officially say we don't intend to. >> it contemplated the top down method, the transit section was going to be built on mound dashing only and there was not going to be any exka*f yeasting of train box on 2. >> and we officially adopted that? >> yes. >> okay, well, then it would make sense. >> is there a motion for approval? >> [inaudible]. >> motion for approval. >> alright. any comments? >> no members of the public

wanting to address you on that item. >> okay, any objection to the motion? okay. motion passes unanimously. >> thank you, item 11 si is approved: moving on to item 12 is approving the recommended applicant tos the transbay joint powers authority citizens advisory committee. >> [inaudible] on this item. >> good morning, directors, our cac was formed back in 2007 and we set it up with 15 different seats and each of those seat iss designated to represent a specified constituency, we'll get a different view nr the transbay program, we have members with two year terms and their terms are staggered such that each year either 7 or 8 seats are up, so this year, we have 7 seats that are up, we also had three members who were not able to complete the sek

year of their two year term for various reasons, so we have ten seats that are up for consideration this year and we've recommended 10 applicants for your consideration. we do very extensive outreach process to generate not just applications but applications from each of the various constituencies that we need to have represented on the cac, and we do that through -- we have an outreach list to 1800 people, they get e-mailed, we of course post this on our website, we included it in our weekly construction outlook that we send out, we have 79 different organizations that we contacted directly, community groups, student group ts, business, environmental, unions, governmental, we of course contacted cal train, ac transit, fmata, we place adds

in local community newspapers in the area all to generate a sufficient number of applicants who are able to fill our seating, you'll see in the staff report our recommendations and i would be happy to answer any questions you have? >> questions, directors? >> i just want to recognize and thank scott and tjpa, i know it's a lot of outreach and work and there are a lot of really interested applicants and qualified applicants so i know it's like a big tetris trying to pick folks and i'm glad to see district 6 south of market serving on the cac, i think it's good to have their perspective as we bring this residential mixed use residents and i see some of the applicants, i will give them the opportunity to speak if they would like, i want to thank you for your work and i think we have a lot of great

candidates. so, it's up to you. alice, would you like to comment? >> director, i'm alice rodgers, i live in south park, i've been live lg there for about 20 years both oz a homeowner and as a small independent contractor, and i appreciate the opportunity to possibly serve on this cac, this obviously is going to be a major influence in our neighborhood and i'm very eager to help participate and knitting it in the in a way that is effective for us and to make sure that the broader regional transportation needs are served as liz bison from the cta told me, if you want to solve the congestion issues in your neighborhood, you need to serve all of those people way far out so they have reasonable and pleasant ways to commute to work.

thank you. >> thank you, ms. rodgers. >> we're not ready for public comment yet. i don't know if the other members -- were there other members we'd like to acknowledge. >> >> we can't require the applicant tos attend websinger made it known they are welcome, we have a few others, it's up to them if they want to speak. i think that's all, i think that concludes my report. >> thank you. >> so, [inaudible] would like to comment on this item. >> i would like to very briefly strongly support the application of paul bendex quho you probably saw right now who is in a wheelchair, i've known him for many years and he is a unique addition of the cac, because of his disabilities, he has a unique side to

accessibility. >> and that concludes members of the public that wanted to address you on that item. >> is there a motion for approval. there is, and there is a second from director lee. is there any objection to the appointments as presented? seeing none, it passes unanimously. >> item 12 is approved: directors, that does conclude your agenda for today. >> okay, we are adjourned. (meeting is adjourned)..

>> the board of directors for our meeting on april 7, 2015, please read the roll. >> commissioner singh director heinecke is anticipated commissioner rosales please be advised the director will not be

here we have quorum so item 3 commissioner, back to you and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items cell phones cause microphone interference so the board respectfully asked they be turned off and for people standing because of the fire codes people need to find a chair here in the room or go to the overflow room in room 408 so if we could fill in the empty seats approval for the minutes of the march 17. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> all in favor, say i. opposed? the i's have it. >> item 5 directors